Quote:but its commen sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it.

True..but the key thing here is IF it's broken or damaged. The jab to the throat is IF you hit the throat. The point of my 'one time at band camp story' was to express the difficulty actually involved in breaking the knee. I also gave the example of those early UFC's, something you neglected to mention. Can a knee be broken with a stomp/kick. Sure. Is is high percentage, well from what I have seen, both in personal experiance and video, no, it is not. The problem is, you can't train the technique to know how it's going to work. You are making an assumption that the way you have been shown will have the desired effect. Although it is indeed common sense that a damaged knee will slow someone down, it is not so easy to effect this damage on a moving, resisting opponent. This move was allowed in the UFC and no one, not once, was able to do it. The burden of proof is on those that say this type of technique will have the desired effect.

Same with the throat. Sure, hitting the throat can really mess someone up. It's a good place to target in a fight, that I would not disagree with. But what is better to build up the kind precise punches needed to hit a fairly small target? Surely not by practising non-resistive, co-operative drills, but rather by learning how to target other areas precisely in the heat of a live exchange. From this, a skill transfer can take place, because the live exchange is less removed from the real event than co-operative practice. In other words, if you know how to target and open up a jaw, then the throat is also opened, and, further, you have the ability to hit it while adreniline is high and the opponent is moving.

Quote:boxers spar with protective gear on sometimes as well (just to bring this kind of back to the op) for safety. safety in training is important and any kind of training has to have safety considerations so you can repeat the training over time.

I don't really understand your point here. Are you saying that because boxers practice is a way that minimizes injury that this analogous to co-operative practice which is never tested in a resistive environment? I don't really think this is an accurate comparison at all, if that is indeed what you're implying

Quote:boxers hit heavy bags for training, but they don't hit back, so heavy bag training could be considered a waste of time. how do you know the punches you work on will actualt work against someone who can move with you?

Well, because you practice those same, exact techniques against a resisting, moving partner. Heavy bag training is a way to build the endurance and striking power needed to deliver these techniques. The techniques then DIRECTLY transfer into the sparring, so they are constantly subject to testing for workablity. You don't know what the outcome of your punch will be based the how the heavy bag reacts, you know the outcome based on how your sparring partner reacts. Even then, a diffirent partner may react diffirently. That's why boxing intrinsically trains combinations, rather than single technique, fight ending, 'deadly' moves. The importance of the resistent sparring stage is what I've been trying to get at.

Quote:how do you know the result of a punch to the jaw will be?

Thanks for making my point for me, and agreeing with me in a round about way. To answer your question, I don't know what the exact outcome will be. I know what the possible and hoped for outcome may be. But do I think this strike will effect everyone in the same way, absolutely not! That's why I train to still be in a position to deliver more strikes, which, again, is the strategy of boxing.

Quote:if any one karate attack failed to do its job, can't we throw another too?

Of course you can. You'll have to clarify what you mean here by "karate attack", but yes, you can. The point is that through sparring, one builds up an intuitive knowledge of how even a poor punch will generally effect someone. With the kind of techniques were talking about here (eye gouges, throat strikes etc) you have no idea how anyone, even on a general level will be effected. In boxing, I'll know if my strike has had its desired effect. With footwork (assuming I'm using good footwork) I'll be able to throw another shot, or cover myself if need be. But the most important thing of all, is that I'll be more used to dealing with the ramifications of a failed attack in an alive (indeterminate) manner, because it will have happened a great many times in sparring and practicing the technique in an enviroment which more closely resembles actual combat (because at least my opponent is reacting to what I actually throw, not reacting based on a hypothesis, no matter how "common sense" it is).

--Chris

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

you make great points here Ames, in fact i agree with most of what your saying, i've actually said most of it before on these forums, lol. except the part where you seem to be linking karate to non resistive/compliant training.

your also refering to boxing only as ring sport, something john kogas warned us karate freaks about earlier on this thread. i'm saying that your only refering to the ring sport version of boxing because you being up how it has to be trainied in a live enviroment to be considered real. all the dirty boxing stuff, the stuff that would be most usefull in a fight, you can't use in a boxing ring. because of the rules.

atheltic, resistive sparing is a HUGE HELP to getting fighting skill. the techniques and strategy boxers use in sparring is great, hell yes it is. so is the stuff i do when i spar in karate. yes, we spar. were not boxers, but we spar and its hard sparing too, but safety has to be taken into account, like in a boxing ring. so we punch, kick, strike, sweep and throw in a live enviroment. we can't practice the "deadly" teachniques in sparing for obvious reasons, but just like we can't so can no one else.

my point is that sparing is great, but it has its limitations. all forms of sparing do, all forms of combat sports do too. commen sense, not exactly ground breaking news to any of you but considering your posts, i'd thought i'd remind you.

"Thanks for making my point for me, and agreeing with me in a round about way."i do mostly agree with you...so your welcome?

"To answer your question, I don't know what the exact outcome will be. I know what the possible and hoped for outcome may be. But do I think this strike will effect everyone in the same way, absolutely not!"which is the answer i'd give you if you asked me the outcome of a knee kick, or eye gouge. you can't know for sure until you do it. there are tehhniques you can do full force in training, but you can apply a little pressure and see where it could end up. not the same thing as getting to know it full force, of coarse, but at least you have an idea.

the bottom line is that in a fight, you look for weak spots to target, if you only want to target a few, go for it.

"You'll have to clarify what you mean here by "karate attack""my bad, lol. any attack from a karate person would count as a "karate attack", lol.

"With the kind of techniques were talking about here (eye gouges, throat strikes etc) you have no idea how anyone, even on a general level will be effected. In boxing, I'll know if my strike has had its desired effect. "

now that i have this entire post written, that quote from your post brings to memory an episode of "fight science" where they looked at self defence techniques, like the eye gouge, the neck strike, and a few others. you should check it out for some results that might be a littel suprising, or they might not be.

Quote: except the part where you seem to be linking karate to non resistive/compliant training.

If it comes off like that, I aplogize, because that's not what I'm trying to say. It's not really about an art, it's about the way that art is trained. I think there is plenty of good karate dojo's out there. But there are many more that train with what I consider outdated methods. Let me clarify what I mean with that...

You said:

Quote:the dirty boxing stuff, the stuff that would be most usefull in a fight, you can't use in a boxing ring.

That's true. But keep in mind, I'm not trying to say that something like an eyegouge can't work. What I'm saying is that what is far more important than knowing about an eyegouge is training delivry system to make that eyegouge a reality. In other words, if I was to just give a percentage, I'd say 90% of time should be dedicated to drilling techniques that can be used in a resistive environment, and sparring. That's totally subjective, and I know it. But the point is that my argument is that someone is much better served spending the majority of thier time developing the qualities to use their 'weapons'; further, I beleive that the only way to effectively develop these qualities is through sparring. That being said, sure you can stick your thumb out and eyegouge someone. But honestly, this is just gravy: the meat is the delivry system that allows me to open up my opponent enough so that this stuff can take place. As an example, if you can open someone enough to hit their jaw, then you can throat strike them. The thing is, can you get them into that position. Boxing is all about positioning. The person in a superior position has the most potential weapons to be deployed. On the other hand, tradional karate footwork (looking at kata, bunkai) is far more linear. One might say that it works by the deployment of the right 'weapon' in response to the given attack, not really by positional dominance. That being said, alot of karate has more recently introduced more taisabaki that seems to be very similar to boxing, in which case my analogy doesn't hold. So, I'm really talking here about tradional karate that finds the majority of its strategy in kata and bunkai. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to see some video that refutes it; because all that I've seen show this to be true.

Quote:my point is that sparing is great, but it has its limitations. all forms of sparing do, all forms of combat sports do too

I totally agree with this. I think boxing itself has a lot holes that need to be filled with cross training other arts, such as those that deal with more effective clinch skills and ground work.

That being said, I think sparring is as close to the real thing as you can get. Now this thread is specifically talking about striking, so I think boxing is a great way to focus on that aspect of your game, because, again, it's focuses on resistive application from the get go.

Quote:there are tehhniques you can do full force in training, but you can apply a little pressure and see where it could end up. not the same thing as getting to know it full force, of coarse, but at least you have an idea.

If you have the main course on your plate, then sure dribble on some gravy. I'm just arguing the importance of those techniques that can be used under pressure in response to the o.p. Basically my point is that karate isn't better than boxing because it contains deadly techniques. What makes someones karate good is the abilty to use the basics in a resistive environment where skill can be measured by some level of accuracy.

Quote:now that i have this entire post written, that quote from your post brings to memory an episode of "fight science" where they looked at self defence techniques, like the eye gouge, the neck strike, and a few others. you should check it out for some results that might be a littel suprising, or they might not be.

You know, I've seen those episodes. As I recall, from another forum, someone with a background in kineseology came on and talked about some major errors in some of those. I'm not saying it was this one in particular, but some of them had major errors.

But that doesn't really matter. My point is the same. That technique is based on proper conditions being met before it can be used. The problem is, is that it is exceedingly difficult to understand those conditions without actually ever training them (or the closest thing to them).

My problem with tradionally taught karate (please note 'tradionally taught') is that it functions with the exact opposite methodology of how a good system should. Bruce Lee's example of basketball player being told to hold a basketball for three years before he takes a shot, is a pretty good analogy for what I'm getting at. Basically, sparring should take place at the begining of training, maybe not full out on day one, but definately with resistence. Only after this level is acheived do I think you should learn those techniques that have been shown to be lower percentage. Alot of trad. karate reverses this completely, teaching the low percentage stuff first, drilling one person kata and co-operative application. Many, especially the most tradional dojo, don't move past this stage. Those that do I feel do so only after an overlong preamble. Karate such as Anshin, Ashihara, Daido Juku (though not Karate in a strict sense) have shown that one just doesn't need this long of a preamble in order to perform at a functional level.

When I say I prefer boxing, it's because it is ALWAYS trained in this resistive way. Therefore, generally, I think it's a better choice for striking ability.

--Chris

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

I agree boxing is an easier skill to develope and gives you a good potent base and so, does well in competition/Sports K1,MMA and such. But one of the reason is that 60% of what Karate is, is illegal and some say dangerous to apply in sports.

Yes, and too dangerous to actually practice as well. If you can't practice, you can't develop skill. There's a lot of dangerous stuff in boxing as well, otherwise people wouldn't have died in the ring, no? There are also a lot of illegal things that boxers do in the ring as well, that take no practice whatsoever to do them. Why can they do this? Because they're functional fighters. Foul tactics require no skill. Skill comes from a functional delivery system, which comes from functional practice. And that functional practice knows no stylistic boundaries; karate, boxing, you name it, can all practice alive and functionally. As Krishnamurti said, "the truth is outside of all fixed forms". No form then, owns it. It's ALL a matter of how you train.

Quote:I see your point and it's a good one HOw Do we Know that these so called deadly techniques are effective if you can't practice them on others?

I think that is a very legitimate question. The truth is, you cannot "know" if your technique is worthy if it isn't repeatedly testable (ie, using it in training against a resisting opponent or in competition). If you cannot use it, it's only theory isn't it? It's often said that what looks good on paper doesn't often fly in the real world.

student_of_life wrote

Quote:theres no real way of knowing it for sure. but its common sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it. we can't practice these things in sparring, but we can practice safer versions that are more forgiving on the partner, as long as we are aware that a small change in the application could have different effects. not say they will for sure do this instead of that, but nothing is 100% in a fight.

You know, you're right. If you kick someone's knee and injure, he may slow down. But you can't be sure. I've seen people do some damned near incredible things when you'd have thought that they were injured severely. I know of a guy that broke his forearm in a fight and he ended up knocking the guy out with his other arm. You just don't know what effect your "alleged" technique is going to have.

And the problem with "pretending" to train is that you're not really training. Why do I say, "pretending"? Because if you're pretending to kick at the knee of your partner and aren't really kicking it, then you're just pretending. You're playing a game that is called "fantasy martial arts". I've even seen people "pretend" to be injured after their partner "pretended" to kick them in the knee. What good is that really when you are unable to derive any legitimate feedback from your technique?

Here's one big problem with that; many people will tell you that unless you have confidence in a technique, you probably won't be able to use it. How are you going to develop confidence in something you have to "pretend" to do? I could go on and on but, do you see my point?

Quote:

boxers spar with protective gear on sometimes as well (just to bring this kind of back to the op) for safety. safety in training is important and any kind of training has to have safety considerations so you can repeat the training over time.

True, but that is only so that they can actually train live. They wear equipment so they don't have to "pretend" to hit each other.

Quote:

boxers hit heavy bags for training, but they don't hit back, so heavy bag training could be considered a waste of time. how do you know the punches you work on will actualt work against someone who can move with you?

Boxers don't hit heavy bags to learn to fight. They hit bags to develop attributes like stamina, power, etc. They learn to apply those skills through alive training against resisting partners/opponents. That's key.

Quote:

and i've been punched in the chest and had to have 4 ribs poped back into place. one story isn't can't be used to predict the future or all combat. if you want to use your expirence to help guide your training, then go for it. if you want to use a "one time, at band camp" kind of story to discount a knee stomp, go for it.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't discount any technique. Anything is possible and some things aren't as likely. I'm not personally that concerned about the dreaded knee stomp. Any good fighter isn't going to stand there posing like a statue and allow someone to have full access to the knee. It's a low percentage technique as far as I'm concerned, unless I'm coming in, walking forward with me legs straightened out like stilts. But that's really beside the point. The real question is, how does one train such a technique to be functional. The true answer is, you can't. It's all theory and hope that such a tactic works like you think it should. That's still fine, whatever floats your boat. The only reason I'm discussing this topic is because it should be seen for what it is - a theoretical, "best guess", like a lot of other "vital points" and foul tactics.

Really, I don't have a problem with that sort of thing either. I have no problems with people practicing any of that sort of stuff provided that they have something to fall back on - a functional delivery system developed through athletic (read, "sport") style training. You CAN have the best of both worlds.

Quote:

how do you know the result of a punch to the jaw will be? how many times have you seen a guy get hit in the jaw and not go down compared to how many have actually gone down?

I don't know if that is the point here. The point is, you can practice hitting the jaw, where you will have a harder time practicing hitting your training partners groin at full power. Is that no true? I mean, that a person won't drop after a technique is of secondary relevence to what is being discussed here. The primary point is how one goes about developing said technique, how one trains.

Quote:

you can't know the percentage success of anything really, you can talk about high percentage and low percentage, but who the hell has done the math on that?

The "math" is what you do in training. The gym is where you do your research. That's the only place you can reliably and repeatedly research your theories is it not?

Quote:

if, for example, a hook to the jaw fails to KO your target, you try to hit him again. so, if any one karate attack failed to do its job, can't we throw another too?

Certainly you can. I would never say otherwise. But again, it's not what you think you can do, it's what you know you can do that matters, at least as far as I'm concerned. Some of the points that I've been trying to make over the course if this thread and, my entire time on this forum, has been on the matter of theory vs. practical reality; of impracticable technique vs. practicable technique. That's a very substantial point, imo.

However I am NOT going to be the man to go on record and say karate guys can't fight. That completely depends on the individual and how that person trains. All I've ever said is that there are training methods that, in my opinion, are more functional than others. There are some things that are a complete waste of valuable, irreplaceable time. But that's just my opinion.

Quote:However I am NOT going to be the man to go on record and say karate guys can't fight. That completely depends on the individual and how that person trains. All I've ever said is that there are training methods that, in my opinion, are more functional than others. There are some things that are a complete waste of valuable, irreplaceable time. But that's just my opinion.

This summarises your position very well John.

However are you not prepared to concede that it is possible that some of the things you consider "a waste of valuable time" are done for reasons pertinent to karate tactics and goals that you don't fully understand?

For example, if you sparred with Morio Higaonna even now in his 70s I know you'd have to respect his extremely high level of effectiveness. You might be inclined to put that down to the training he does which is similar to boxing - and say that whatever else he's done has been a "complete waste of time". In fact, he does (and has always done) very traditional karate training - very little of his personal routine looks ANYTHING like boxing (this is in contrast to even my own approach). Ditto some of his top students such as Graham Ravey in the UK with whom I have trained with on and off for many years - an extremely formidable fighter by anyone's standards (very few people I know can dish out full power blows AND take them like Graham).

The fact is that karate has a fundamentally different approach to its tactics. I can tell that this is not something you have experienced (at least properly). Neither, it seems, has Chris - even though he's done some karate. Yes it takes a bit longer to master, but the reason Higaonna and others like him fight as well as they do (and don't take my word for it, try your luck as many have done) is because of their own particular approach and the methods they use. These might not be intuitively easy to understand for a Western-based fighter because they are so different. The "drills" you lampoon as ineffective actually serve a very different purpose than what you assume. Until you've done them and realised the benefits you are unlikely to appreciate that purpose.

I've tried (in good faith) to open up the karate paradigm to greater understanding by referring to some of the fundamentally different aims (just one being developing kime). However (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that my perspective (being just one here) is not accorded any serious attention. It is automatically seen by you and Chris as a "lame justification" rather than what it is; a sincere attempt to give you some insight into karate methodology. I was (rightly) criticised for using a condescending tone earlier on, yet it seems to me that you and Chris make no real attempt to be open to a VERY approach despite the fact that some of its adherents demonstrate an extremely high level of practicality (if you ever train with them directly - as opposed to joining in white belt basics - you'll see what I mean). You take the information I provide to explain how their approach (how they got to be able to do what they do) and interpret it as an attack, rather than a sincere attempt to expand the debate.

Butterfly said to me a little while ago that I "had no truck" with some of the guys I appeared to be implicitly criticising when I made some sweeping statement about combat sports. I had spoken rashly and immediately conceded his point. You criticise karate methods using very strong language ("complete waste of time" etc.), yet you have no truck with some seriously tough guys - who do no boxing style training at all and mostly do the "waste of time" stuff. The fact that karate has a large number of adherents who practise a very diluted recreational form does not invalidate its methodology; they are not the only examples of karate (even if they are in the majority).

In other words, "complete waste of time" is something I think you should revisit. On the other hand, you're unlikely to do so as long as you refuse to concede ANY ground in relation to your views and to open up to other possiblities (even if they are not what you would ever choose to do).

Funny. My teacher told me on day one of karate, 'We are a traditional dojo...no sparring.' Or essentially, no sparring until a certain level of control is reached. I'd like to point out that 'traditional' as a term doesn't mean no-sparring, or no-sparring until several years, or no-resistance in some dojos.

But you may not be familiar with this type of karate. And people that teach it are notably absent from forums.

Quote: My problem with tradionally taught karate (please note 'tradionally taught') is that it functions with the exact opposite methodology of how a good system should. Bruce Lee's example of basketball player being told to hold a basketball for three years before he takes a shot, is a pretty good analogy for what I'm getting at. Basically, sparring should take place at the begining of training, maybe not full out on day one, but definately with resistence. Only after this level is acheived do I think you should learn those techniques that have been shown to be lower percentage. Alot of trad. karate reverses this completely, teaching the low percentage stuff first, drilling one person kata and co-operative application. Many, especially the most tradional dojo, don't move past this stage. Those that do I feel do so only after an overlong preamble. Karate such as Anshin, Ashihara, Daido Juku (though not Karate in a strict sense) have shown that one just doesn't need this long of a preamble in order to perform at a functional level.

When I say I prefer boxing, it's because it is ALWAYS trained in this resistive way. Therefore, generally, I think it's a better choice for striking ability.

If here is a place of opinions, why do you need to ask people to conceed things that go against their experience or better judgement? Why isn't it ok for people to think some theories of self-defense training are a waste of time?

Isn't there a sliver of possibility that some may think it's you who should conceed in the appearence that you talk alot on subjects and come off as an expert, but your movement suggests that assumed position is unfounded? for instance, your talk/blog/website suggests you've been training for decades - but I'm sure it seems to some eyes, your movements and drills show unrefined body dynamics and compliant training methods.

or is it all about being so polite, and not stepping on any toes, that nobody self-reflects?

Boxers before the early 1900's fought bare-knuckle and had a completely different style. Then people started using gloves and then larger and larger gloves and more and more rules (or different rules) and strangely boxing changed as the rules changed. Bareknuckle boxers fought much more like traditional Karate fighters than "modern" boxers. IS that because they were "less scientific" and more premitive in their use of boxing? It seems odd that all of the sudden in a period of maybe 40 or 50 years the techniques of boxing would increase drastically and all those years before the techniques had stagnated and no one progressed in knowledge or skill and would just less skilled. Jkogas would you say fighters of recent times are more skilled than fighters of the bareknuckle days or early days of gloved boxing? I find that hard to believe. Fighters of the old days usually fought a lot more and boxing had been around for a couple hundred years I would think they would've gotten pretty skilled after all that time. Maybe thir style went along with the rules just like today rather than simply being worse. Also, the use of boxing in mma is very different from boxing under boxing organizations. If it's all basically the same wouldnt they use textbook boxing in mma rather than modifying it so much?Also, while boxing is great it's a bit narrow, Karate is nice as you learn to incorporate a lot of grabs with yoru strikes which is hard to do with big gloves. Bareknuckle boxers incortporated a lot more techniques, I would think, because they didnt have gloves getting in the way or as many rules. You adapt to different situations. Not all fighting is equal or the same.Different rules/situatiosn require a different approach. You could say that bareknuckle boxers didnt spar as more or something due to know glvoes but from reading a lot on it I'm pretty sure they sparred just as much. Fought very differently yet the fighters were usually more experienced than todays fighters and did use 'aliveness' in their training. Seems crazy to think they were worse fighters.

And why is everyone criticising Dan so much, Jkogas is way more aggressive against Karate yet no one really cares. Here Dan is at least as experienced as Jkogas (not trying to insult you or jump on you Jkogas and you guys BOTH know wayy more than I ever will lol).

Jkogas-just curious about yoru idea that dirty tactics are so instinctual-what makes you think that? I've seen many fights where guys in even the most disadvantagous of positions failed to use such tactics. I havent seen any evidence or research saying that dirty fighting is an inborn human instinct. they're movements like any other, such as a jab, and they have to be trained like any others (such as jabs). If you train to never use those you probably wont in a fight. Granted it's hard to train them with 'aliveness' it's possible-Tony Blauer does some of that I thought same with Paul Vunak.

Or and you can train something with "aliveness" all you want but that doesnt mean it'll necessairly be a tactically sound technique.

Edited by Stormdragon (11/10/0810:58 PM)

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

However are you not prepared to concede that it is possible that some of the things you consider "a waste of valuable time" are done for reasons pertinent to karate tactics and goals that you don't fully understand?

I'm quite sure. But fighting is fighting and isn't exactly rocket science. I know enough about fighting to make astute observations.

Quote:

For example, if you sparred with Morio Higaonna even now in his 70s I know you'd have to respect his extremely high level of effectiveness. You might be inclined to put that down to the training he does which is similar to boxing - and say that whatever else he's done has been a "complete waste of time". In fact, he does (and has always done) very traditional karate training - very little of his personal routine looks ANYTHING like boxing (this is in contrast to even my own approach). Ditto some of his top students such as Graham Ravey in the UK with whom I have trained with on and off for many years - an extremely formidable fighter by anyone's standards (very few people I know can dish out full power blows AND take them like Graham).

Don't know any of these people you mention and therefore, I can't comment.

Quote:The fact is that karate has a fundamentally different approach to its tactics. I can tell that this is not something you have experienced (at least properly). Neither, it seems, has Chris - even though he's done some karate. Yes it takes a bit longer to master, but the reason Higaonna and others like him fight as well as they do (and don't take my word for it, try your luck as many have done) is because of their own particular approach and the methods they use. These might not be intuitively easy to understand for a Western-based fighter because they are so different. The "drills" you lampoon as ineffective actually serve a very different purpose than what you assume. Until you've done them and realised the benefits you are unlikely to appreciate that purpose.

Well again, fighting isn't rocket science. It's quite simple in fact. My point of view is, there's no need to build a more elaborate mousetrap when the simple one works quite well. I don't know any of these people that you refer to, but I'm game enough to train with anyone.

But let me ask you a question; could these individuals that you speak of an obviously respect, do well in sparring matches? Could they spar in all "ranges" or phases? Not knowing anything about them and given the fact that you apparently do, I figured you might know.

Quote:

I've tried (in good faith) to open up the karate paradigm to greater understanding by referring to some of the fundamentally different aims (just one being developing kime). However (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that my perspective (being just one here) is not accorded any serious attention.

We're just skeptical folks I suppose. We prefer to be shown and not told I suppose. I've studied karate in the past and have had experience with it to know that what I've seen has basically sucked with a capital SUCK. I'm not ignorant to the point where I believe that every karate school on earth operates in the same manner. Though I'm aware that most are essentially the same.

Quote:

It is automatically seen by you and Chris as a "lame justification" rather than what it is; a sincere attempt to give you some insight into karate methodology.

That's fine bro. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I mean, at the end of the day, I'm pretty opened minded. Just not to the point where my brain falls out. I believe that Chris is a cool, down to earth guy as well. I think we're both here because we have a point of view. That point of view is shaped by the exclusivity of other points of view. That's just the way it works. That said, opinions, mine included, have been known to change over time. But my opinions have only been reinforced over the years, not softened. With each passing year, a little more depth is added, not breadth. No reason for that.

Quote:

...it seems to me that you and Chris make no real attempt to be open to a VERY approach despite the fact that some of its adherents demonstrate an extremely high level of practicality (if you ever train with them directly - as opposed to joining in white belt basics - you'll see what I mean).

Dan (I am assuming your name is Dan), I've just been talking about kata mostly. My opinion isn't going to change on that matter. I can say that much. It doesn't matter what arguments are used. I've heard them all and disagree with them.

Quote:You take the information I provide to explain how their approach (how they got to be able to do what they do) and interpret it as an attack, rather than a sincere attempt to expand the debate.

No, I don't really see it as an attack, unless you're attacking. You're not attacking now, you're being reasonable. That's why I'm not attacking. See, I believe you and I (and everyone else) can have a reasonable discussion. Even if it means agreeing to disagree. If the truth is all we're after and we follow a LOGICAL and rational path (those are the key words) path toward it, we will eventually come to a point where we agree, most likely. That is, if we don't fall back on emotional arguments.

Quote:

.....You criticise karate methods using very strong language ("complete waste of time" etc.), yet you have no truck with some seriously tough guys - who do no boxing style training at all and mostly do the "waste of time" stuff.

I don't know what else to call kata than a waste of time. But the only reason I call it that is because that's what I see it as. In other words, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being honest. Saying that kata is a waste of time is just an easy, to the point way of expressing how I feel about it. I don't know how else to say it in a nicer way. I guess I could say that kata is an "exercise in futility", but I doubt that would go over well either. So I'll just leave it at that. Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean spirited here. I just don't know how else to say it because to me, time is limited and I want to spend it well. Doing something that I consider to be meaningless and have no functional purpose for fighting is, a waste of valuable time -- to me. I hope you understand that I'm not trying to slam the practice. There's a difference between being mean and being honest. It may not seem like much, but there is.

Quote:

The fact that karate has a large number of adherents who practise a very diluted recreational form does not invalidate its methodology; they are not the only examples of karate (even if they are in the majority).

Sure, I recognize that, even though I've never personally met any. But I'm not afraid to spar with anyone. I've had my ass handed to me enough over the years that a few more times isn't going to kill me. If I ever had the opportunity to meet and train with some good karate ka, I would consider it an honor. I would only hope they would consider it the same. By train, I mean, to "spar" and not do kata however.....just so we're clear.

Quote:In other words, "complete waste of time" is something I think you should revisit. On the other hand, you're unlikely to do so as long as you refuse to concede ANY ground in relation to your views and to open up to other possiblities (even if they are not what you would ever choose to do).

Again, lets be clear that I'm talking mostly about the practice of kata than anything else. Even the 1-3 step sparring stuff I don't like either. But that's just me. I have reasons why I don't like it. Those reasons are perfectly valid. If someone can convince me, using logic, of their merit, and more importantly, SHOW me, I might be persuaded. However, no one has ever done that sufficiently. Thus we arrive at the point that we have now.

I will agree Kata, while it may be fun for some people and good exercise I suppose, isnt all that necessary (I sometimes like doing it but thats just me). I dont think was ever really meant for anything other than a way to record the methods of a system in the absence of video/pictures, etc. Kind of like a ryme to help remember moral ideas or something. Take Kajukenbo, it's a very traditional form of fighting (at least compared to mma/boxing) yet forms are a pretty small part of it and they do just fine.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,